What does Charles Taylor’s trial mean for Africa?

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 06 July 2007

As the Summit of the African Union (AU) Heads of State and Government came to an end on 03 July 2007 in Accra, Ghana, one of the former colleagues of the heads of African states, former Liberian president Charles Taylor, appeared for the first time in court at The Hague, facing criminal charges ranging from murder to rape.

As the United States publication, the Los Angeles Times, put it: “Taylor pleaded not guilty to 11 charges that he controlled and armed rebels who killed, raped, mutilated and enslaved civilians during Sierra Leone's civil war, which ended in 2002”.

Taylor’s trial raises serious questions that the people of African decent, both at home and across the diaspora, need to grabble with, for the trial itself of the former Liberian leader suffers from two serious deficiencies.

Firstly, the trial is premised on selective justice. One need not to be a historian or a legal expert to realise that, up to so far, only heads of poor states are held accountable for war and related crimes. The rich and the powerful seem immune from this law.

Considering the recent wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan etc, one wonders whether or not there are no sufficient legal grounds to charge United States President George W. Bush and his ally, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, of war and related crimes.

If yes there are sufficient legal grounds to charge the two, the question then is who, of all the nations of the world, is capable of standing up to power? It is clear that those who bankroll many of the nations of the world in the name of aid are immune from the sort of justice unleashed against Taylor.

Secondly, the authoriries (whoever they are) at the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, were politically smart in choosing presiding officers, with the judge being a black woman.

The selection of the judge raises questions as to whether the decision of the authorities at The Hague was informed by an attempt to hide the extend of Western pressure in what seemed like a near-abduction of Taylor from his country.

The details of the pseudo-abduction were later related by Libyan leader Muammar AlGhattafi in a speech welcoming the election of new Liberian leader Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, at a dinner during the latter’s official visit to Libya.

AlGhattafi told Johnson-Sirleaf that he considers Taylor “as having sacrificed [his residency] for the sake of Liberia, because on 11 August 2003 he voluntarily gave u power in favour of his deputy and he went into exile in Nigeria, ending a civil war that lasted 14 years”.

AlGhattafi expressed his opposition to Taylor’s trial, adding that: “Our brother, [former Nigerian President] Olusegun Obasanjo, offered asylum to Taylor in Nigeria, and Taylor, accordingly, handed power over to his deputy”.

AlGhattafi correctly pointed out that the violation of Taylor’s asylum “represents a dangerous precedent like that of Hissene Habre, the former president of Chad, who is under threat of being handed over to an international court”.

The circumstances surrounding Taylor’s transfer to The Hague are as controversial and unsatisfactory as is the legal team defending him.

There should be no question about the need to hold war criminals accountable for their actions, but if this applies only to leaders of poor countries, then the world in general and poor countries in particular, must oppose this selective justice.

The sooner Africa unites and forms institutions of governance, including her own continental courts of law, the better the chances of having a truly independent bloc of African states under the envisaged United States of Africa.